Rating: 
Summary: the subversion of the women's movement--by women!
Review: As the title suggests, the author contents that something has happened to the women's movement since the days of sisterhood. The movement has been taken in directions so counterproductive that the original leaders of the movement have been forced to openly oppose it.
The book begins with particularly egregious examples of careless scholarship by academics calling themselves "feminists." It documents how these misstatements were picked up by various publications, including popular ones such as "Ms.," and circulated as fact, even misleading government agencies and foundations in the process. These examples all involve questions of extent: the extent of anorexia among women, the extent of "domestic battery, rape, sexual harassment, bias against girls in school, wage differentials," etc. (p.15) In addition, these self-appointed advocates are intent upon blaming America itself. "...it is not enough to remind us that many brutal and selfish men harm women. They must persuade us that the system itself sanctions male brutality." (p.16) These allegations against "feminists" are documented by the words of the "feminists" themselves and would be comical except for the fact that so many women have now been taught to believe them. One example: Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is said by one feminist musicologist to be the "murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release." (p.28)
In chapters entitled: Transforming the Academy, New Epistemologies, The Feminist Classroom, and A Bureaucracy of One's Own, the book documents the revolution that took place in universities in the 1980s. (Epistemology, by the way, is the study of how one comes to know something.) The new "feminists" have posited that women have special gifts that enable them to know things without the use of such time-consuming and bothersome male-dominated tools as observation, theory-formation, testing, revision of theories, re-testing, etc. (p.74 ff) As to courses of study, new "fields" with new texts have been generated. Eminent feminists such as Iris Murdoch have been quick to condemn such nonsense: " `Women's Studies' can mean that women are led to read mediocre or peripheral books by women rather than the great books by humanity in general....It is a dead end." (p.78). The "feminist" classroom, moreover, is centered around avoiding all criticism including self-criticism. Criticism is "backlash" in disguise. (p.93) " `Challenging facts', stating the exceptions to every generalization", constitutes " `classroom harassment.' " (p. 93) The transformation of universities extends to taking over the bureaucracy as well, getting "feminists" appointed to committees, Presidencies of universities, professional associations, etc. (p.118 ff) "Faculty members who are not `keeping up with current trends' in postmodern and feminist thought may be disqualified from sitting on tenure and promotion committees." (p.129) Each of these claims is documented by case after case and quote after quote.
The bad news is that things have gotten worse since this book came out in 1994; and though the book suggests that the roots of all this are in the sixties and seventies, the book does not show how. For a full account of the roots and further deterioration up to the present time, get The Rape of Alma Mater. Additional documentation of the changes in academia in the eighties can be found in Illiberal Education. Other books such as The New Thought Police, and "Shut Up and Sing" show how these changes are now spreading to society at large through the media.
Rating: 
Summary: "You would be BEATEN"?
Review: While I believe these posts are meant to review the subject at hand (i.e. the text of the book itself) and not to comment back and forth on the remarks of other post-ers, I felt compelled to add my two cents in regard to the customer review that states Ms. Hoff-Sommers "hates" feminism and then proceeds to make such extremist claims that Ms. Hoff-Sommers "would be BEATEN" (the reviewer's emphasis), for various reasons, had it not been for the feminist movement.
If you have read the book, you would know that Ms. Hoff-Sommers is 100% feminist in her thinking. She just believes that the cause of women being, or becoming, equal to men under the law is not served by the use of distorted facts, bogus research and the alarmist rhetoric (like "You would be BEATEN") that is often invented, or publicized, by some feminsts and/or feminist groups.
She also further argues--successfully I believe--that if the women's movement continues to rely of these faulty "facts" (this "crying wolf," so to speak), it will only prove to be hurtful in the long run as society comes to be untrusting of real and valid stats and research on the true realities of women.
That earlier reviewer shows via his/her comments that s/he has a complete misunderstanding of this book not to mention some very ill-formed beliefs about history. Thankfully, judging by the number of other readers who stated that the review was not helpful to them, it seems that I'm not the only one taking issue with and challenging that earlier writer's opinions.
Rating:
Summary: Has to be taken in a greater context, but valuable.
Review: Sommers points out that a lot of the voices we hear in the women's movement are poory reasoned. Rightfully, she examines the rationale behind some people's arguments. She also disects and shows the bad evidence in some often cited statistics and studies. I believe that her citiques of other's methodologies are generally well founded and sensibly reasoned, and she was cutting edge at one time. Some of what she says about boys being stunted in their education by their social norms is currently mainstream sociological thinking. Also, it does not take a lot of effort to tear apart the thinking in some women's studies literature.
I feel that the first chapter, which she devotes to her criticism of Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth, is well done. On the other hand, Wolf still has a valuable book and I wonder if Sommers read the book, because the basic premise of the book is still important. I actually think that Sommers might concur with Wolf as The Beauty Myth partially argues that gender norms hurt women and men. Also, the fact that Wolf uses an egregiously wrong statistic to try and prove that women are constrained by social norms to look good doesn't mean that women are NOT constrained in this way.
Likewise, as Sommers is evaluating studies on the number of women who have been raped, I think it's important to look at the bigger picture. I strongly agree that inflating statistics can hurt one's cause in the long run, and that a lot of money is poured into rape crisis centers for rich women, while poor women are largely ignored (she gives the example of the well funded rape crisis center at Wellesly, which rarely ever gets a call, versus underfunded centers in poor communities). I also think that fooling around with the definition of rape in order to argue that more women are raped than actually are probably detracts from the significance of the word "rape" and hurts women who actually ARE raped. Also, I think her criticism of the research methods used to generate statistics on rape are sound, but this doesn't negate the fact that a lot of women are raped and it should still be considered a social problem. Even given her most conservative estimates, the rape rate is greater than or equal too the murder rate.
I am simply saying that his book uses some solid methodology critiques but could lead a reader to unbalanced conclusions in the end. Get it and read it and know that some feminist writers have manipulated numbers in rediculous ways (for that matter, read about deconstructionism for awhile and realize that some feminist writers have departed from reality altogether, and base their philosophies on the writings of a few french MEN). On the other hand, take into account the larger debate in which women are still in a group that is derided and excluded from many of the opportunities that men have.
It is an accessable book, though. If you have a sense of humor and want to read more about feminism then you might also check out Mary Daly (on the liberal end of feminism), and Camille Paglia (on the conservative end).
Rating:
Summary: What every man should know about female cruelty
Review: Either from selfishness, failed ambitions, or simply becoming caught up in a world where women demand perfection, women are often their own worst enemy. Afraid to approach power as men do, or unaware of the limits of their own flaws, women who band together with other women for accomplishment or for detruction (it doesn't matter which), are always the brick wall likely to be hit. There is no greater group for whom the worst tactics and the best tactics can be unleashed when women give their support or their wrath to other women. It may be why various societies have decided women are best off alone at home. The bonded group is especially dangerous at the teen level and up because of their incredible skill at subterfuge or at coordination. There is little they cannot do, except when they turn that energy in upon themselves so that nothing can get accomplished. They are, by far, the world's best infighters, and have all the benefit of multitasking and intuitive control at their disposal. If unleashed as it must have been during the days in Salem, they are a forced to be reckoned with, so that in those days, they were hung as witches, because few are subject to reason and negotiation. The world has never bothered to study the best and the worst of women, but there is certainly good evidence that it should be done. No group could be said to be more comfortable with taking over the world, if they chose to, than bonded women, for they lack the rigid hierarchy of men, and capitalize upon rule bending far beyond those of men, in an arrogance that is unsurpassed by men. History is filled with amazement of women who have performed extraordinary feats, especially with the support of various powerful men behind them, and more than a share of those are unsung heroes, or villains. The fact that when alone, domestic violence is performed upon women 95% of the time cannot discount the fact that when supported, considerable domestic violence upon men can be the result. Women are not lone wolves, however, typically as they require several women to act as the support and communication network to achieve these acts. The ease with which they accommodate the hardships in these circumstances generally amaze the men with whom they are associated, and most are in awe, if not fearful of the power felt. As women continue to make alliances with each other, and don't go it alone, it is far more likely that this will be an increasing phenomenon of women holding the feet of men to the fire, and perhaps, also an increase in domestic violence against men, or against children, since most women who have these tendences show no exceptions for boundaries as males often do. Women do not support either their children, their spouses, or other women when disosed in a syndrome of cruelty. There is little remorse because of the ease of justification of having been wronged; therefore, the impetus to fight back becomes justified in their minds. Fortunately, there are only a few of them as compared to men, but they are just as deadly, if not more deadly than men. In the film of the Bodyguard, the extent of women's deception, secrecy, and cold hearted cruelty can be found in the character of the sister of Whitney Houston where blind jealousy and ambition concealed her deadly motive, not uncharacteristic of many women who fall victim to their emotions, and stop at little in mitigation techniques. In such circumstances, scapegoats are not an exception; they are the entire territory, all the while remaining focused upon their target, often without it being recognized by anyone. Having watched this growing phenomenon in girls as it develops throughout high school, the skill and experience grows exponentially at college and beyond, especially in all female schools, often some say, as the functional equivalent of prisons where males learn to overcome the laws and live outside of them, and become better criminals.
Rating: 
Summary: Reality Check, lady
Review: Hmmmm, a female published author who hates feminism. Ms. Hoff-Sommers, if it wasn't for feminism, you would be BEATEN for having written a book, BEATEN for knowing how to read and write, and BEATEN for having an education. Next time youwant to write a book, thank your sisters who DIED so you can write a book trashing all the things they did you you!
Rating:
Summary: Sommers understands and exposes bigotry
Review: After having read Backlash by Faludi, I bought this book hoping to better understand the counter-argument. I try never to come to a conclusion until I've read a representation from both or all sides. In other words, my disappointment with this book is not due to any political beliefs or preconceptions... The truth is that, while Sommers debunks some extremist myths, the book is riddled with glaring fallacies. If this book gained attention, it was for its "politically incorrect" nature, and certainly not for its academic quality.As I said, certainly Sommers raises valid questions about extreme statements made by a handful of "gender-feminists" (a label invented by the author). She rightfully points out the fiction of alarmist rhetoric of a few (a very few) feminists, i.e. super bowl Sunday domestic violence rates, # of anorexic deaths per year, and certain rape studies. However, she desperatly tries to make the logical leap that this misinformation discredits all feminists (except for, of course the, "equity feminists," another self-penned category). Logical fallacies and novice research are found throughout, though nowhere more glaring than in her attempt to refute Faludi's Backlash (the National Book Award Winner). No one should assume Sommers is correct without also reading Backlash. Here are a few of Sommers more memorable misteps: 1)She starts the chapter by arguing that if one finds any doubt in any of Faludi's points, all points must be viewed with caution. A required opener, as it turns out. Of the eighty pages of footnotes in Backlash, Sommers weakly questions four of them... Actually, none of the criticism is her own; she just recycles those written by others. 2)Take the Forbes Mag. critique Sommers borrows. It must be stated that Faludi effectively demolishes Forbes' journalistic integrity time and time again..(remember the Dr. Blotnick's column, whose tirades against feminists continued even after it was revealed to the editors that the "Dr." title was bogus, and that his "current mentor" had been dead for fifteen years.) Here's the logical brilliance we see in Sommers book:
a)Quoting Faludi, she writes "women applying to business schools suddenly began to shrink, for the first time in a decade." This was after a report in Forbes, Faludi points out, that claimed women were "bailing out" of careers to become housewives.
b)But Faludi is wrong, says Sommers and the Forbes critique she co-opts: "But there was no shrinking following the story...the proportion of female business school graduates increased every year since 1967." Hmmmm???? She's grasping at straws here..."women applying" and "# of female graduates" are clearly different...yet Sommers seems to think that a decrease in applicants and an increase in graduates can't happen simultaneously. How was this published? 3) She's at it again in the next paragraph. This time, she argues Faludi is wrong when saying "women were [in the 80's] pouring into low paid female work ghettos." Why? Because, according to the borrowed Forbes article, "the percentage of women executives, administrators, and managers in the work force has risen [since 1983]." Sommers should give her readers more credit...she seems to believe that if executive jobs for women are on the rise, in no way can the rate of low-paid women be increasing too. Hmmmm????? So many blatant illogical assumptions and conclusions are made, I frequently wondered how the book was published. And, ironically, Who Stole Feminism was meant as an attempt to point out the fallacies of women such as Faludi. Yet, for every example of careless reasoning I mention above, one finds multiple others lurking close by. In the end, this book will find praise from those who share Sommers views, but hopefully not from anyone who reads it for the sake of better understanding.
|
